ECM-jamming
-
In fairness, this is one of those areas that making concrete improvements to requires concrete data…. which by design, is not available to the public. I personally think there are good solutions available to this problem, most of which are open source intel, but that is probably a different topic.
Not all radar receivers are so specificly tuned, and you are no doubt well aware there exist SIGINT craft whose purpose is to look at such emissions. Its possible to nail down an area a fighter radar emission comes from, with decent accuracy, when its in a search mode. Noise jamming is similarly helpful for locating an origin. An unchecked repeater jammer screams that something is there, even if the exact location is hard to nail down.
We can certainly agree that EMCON is something that could see a wide spectrum upgrade (pardon the pun), for radar, IFF, and ECM.
No I’m not arguing the existence of those aircraft. Hence why I said very few and limited it to small aircraft. Most of those platforms are rather large and explicitly designed for only that function. But I haven’t seen any of them in BMS. I think it would be great to put those in the game, along with Precision and Stand-Off Jammers that actually work and effect IVC as well as other RF. But I also think it would be nice to win the Lottery–
-
This is not entirely accurate. There are algorithms designed to calculate exactly how much of a signal on a specific frequency needs to be blocked or changed in order to effectively disrupt the data on the signal, it’s less than you might think–which means as long as you can maintain a specific amount of signal on a specific frequency there is no loss to effectiveness when spreading ECM across a spectrum.
I also have to disagree with announcing your presence–unless there is something in the BMS code which flags when there is any transmission from an aircraft (Which is super unrealistic), I doubt electron emission is implemented in BMS. Even if it were, there are VERY few small aircraft which can carry passive detection systems, and most of the mobile ground units are ineffective at best. Radar transceivers are specifically tuned to look for the return of the signal they send out. If a radar is seeing ECM returns it means it would have seen the non-ECM return just as easily because that’s how RF works. If the RF from the ECM has line of sight and gets to the receiver, then so would the reflected radar RF from the transceiver. I keep seeing this argument about BMS and RF energy giving away your position be it in ECM or discussions about IFF and having to turn it off in enemy territory etc… I am quite positive those mechanics are not implemented in BMS, or at least not remotely close to accurately. Passive, broad-spectrum detection is not as cut and dry as people make it out to seem in these forums. It’s not like going into silent mode on the panel hides you from everything out there–I can assure you if there is a system out there that is detecting your RF emissions, they have already seen you on radar. No missile system or active tracking system in the world (Except HARM types) are going to rely on signals generated FROM the target in order to provide tracking or detection. That’s why RADAR works–YOU generate the signal and it bounces back to your receiver. Now, actively transmitting in the same freq range as a radar system out there searching (IE from your own radar) WILL produce a bigger return to the system searching (In RL anyway) if it is in the same freq range, but RF is RF whether it’s reflected from an aircraft or generated by an aircraft it will travel the same. Someone has to be listening to the right freqs for it to make a difference. So unless IADS has magically been implemented in a way more advanced way than anything else in the game–there should not be any passive detection or increased visibility from ECM. SHOULD being the keyword.
This isn’t true. Take for example an adversary with a low RCS but dirty emissions. You could get a spike on your RWR before your radar picks him up (especially if you have a crappy radar).
-
No missile system or active tracking system in the world (Except HARM types) are going to rely on signals generated FROM the target in order to provide tracking or detection
Yea about that…HOJ is kind of already a thing. Multiple SAM systems and AA platforms have done it for years.
-
I haven’t seen any of them in BMS.
The RC-135 Rivet Joint (which is indeed the SIGINT variant) is there but I don’t know if it actually does anything throughout the campaign.
-
Yea about that…HOJ is kind of already a thing. Multiple SAM systems and AA platforms have done it for years.
HOJ is an auxiliary method of homing, not a primary method. My point was to say that the systems don’t explicitly rely on a target system to generate the required energy for homing, like a HARM does when not fired at a pre-designated point. HOJ is an energy DF type system which augments the targeting algorithm by searching for the strongest source of the specific RF being emitted, but it is not a sole source of tracking for systems.
This isn’t true. Take for example an adversary with a low RCS but dirty emissions. You could get a spike on your RWR before your radar picks him up (especially if you have a crappy radar). And no missile systems that track radar emissions? Oh really? List of Active Radar Homing Missiles.
Active homing is not the same as HOJ, it means it has it’s own radar system which can take over guidance and not rely solely on the employing aircraft for start to finish guidance. This is the PITBULL call you hear when you fire a 120 in the sim. But I definitely believe everything I read on Wikipedia too, it’s always more accurate than 20+ years in the USAF, although if you would’ve actually read that entire article you might have thought twice about posting it. But since you like Wikipedia so much here’s a link to explain the RWR–read the first sentence which clearly says it reads the RADAR emissions of an aircraft. We are talking about ECM and other emissions, I clearly stated your Radar can cause a return for other aircraft to see on their Radars if they are in the same range, this is the same as an RWR which is preprogrammed to look for certain emissions which fit the mold of a radar carried on specific aircraft. So technically you’re correct an RWR may spike before a RADAR return from a low RCS aircraft, if there is a low RCS combat aircraft out there somewhere spewing forward a ton RF into a combat zone.
But you have both missed the point of my comments. In the BMS world, this RF emissions argument is entirely over used. RF emissions are considered a yes/no thing in BMS, which is incorrect. That is what the entire comment was about, the physics behind it and the pick and choose implementation of “accurate” systems based on not-at-all modeled particle physics. That’s not a bash on the BMS team, they have done a lot to improve the game. I’m just trying to say that I keep seeing this argument everywhere that any emissions in an environment automatically give away your position, and that EMCON is a big, accurately modeled function of BMS–but it’s not. It’s just a bit somewhere that says emitting or not, which is a huge oversimplification.
-
The RC-135 Rivet Joint (which is indeed the SIGINT variant) is there but I don’t know if it actually does anything throughout the campaign.
Correct, but as you say–I don’t know if it does anything in the campaign either.
-
HOJ is an auxiliary method of homing, not a primary method. My point was to say that the systems don’t explicitly rely on a target system to generate the required energy for homing, like a HARM does when not fired at a pre-designated point. HOJ is an energy DF type system which augments the targeting algorithm by searching for the strongest source of the specific RF being emitted, but it is not a sole source of tracking for systems.
Active homing is not the same as HOJ, it means it has it’s own radar system which can take over guidance and not rely solely on the employing aircraft for start to finish guidance. This is the PITBULL call you hear when you fire a 120 in the sim. But I definitely believe everything I read on Wikipedia too, it’s always more accurate than 20+ years in the USAF, although if you would’ve actually read that entire article you might have thought twice about posting it. But since you like Wikipedia so much here’s a link to explain the RWR–read the first sentence which clearly says it reads the RADAR emissions of an aircraft. We are talking about ECM and other emissions, I clearly stated your Radar can cause a return for other aircraft to see on their Radars if they are in the same range, this is the same as an RWR which is preprogrammed to look for certain emissions which fit the mold of a radar carried on specific aircraft. So technically you’re correct an RWR may spike before a RADAR return from a low RCS aircraft, if there is a low RCS combat aircraft out there somewhere spewing forward a ton RF into a combat zone.
But you have both missed the point of my comments. In the BMS world, this RF emissions argument is entirely over used. RF emissions are considered a yes/no thing in BMS, which is incorrect. That is what the entire comment was about, the physics behind it and the pick and choose implementation of “accurate” systems based on not-at-all modeled particle physics. That’s not a bash on the BMS team, they have done a lot to improve the game. I’m just trying to say that I keep seeing this argument everywhere that any emissions in an environment automatically give away your position, and that EMCON is a big, accurately modeled function of BMS–but it’s not. It’s just a bit somewhere that says emitting or not, which is a huge oversimplification.
Did I ever mention a word about HOJ? CTRL + F my post and see if HOJ ever appears. It does not.
Next, that is only semi-accurate with regards to PITBULL. PITBULL means that the missile has gone MPRF active; the missile has gone active well before this range. This range is the active range (and classified) and the brevity comm for this is HUSKY. The missile transitions to HPRF (HUSKY) first, then MPRF(PITBULL).
You stated that if someone saw you with a passive detection device they would see you first with their radar. This was the whole argument that you missed wholesale. This is not true. How do you think the HTS pod works? And I can promise you without talking about ranges (again because they’re classified), that the HTS pod picks up ELINT a lot farther out than the radar can send and pick up radar returns.
Additionally, I know how the RWR in MY jet works. Again, I never said the RWR doesn’t detect radar emissions…
Reference: I may not have 20+ years (thank you for your service), but I fly the Viper for USAF…
-
Id like to see more folks with your level of familiarity with the 3-1 attach 1 flying this sim, I really would.
-
For the sake of argument, I’ll refer to the R-27 (AA-10) P/EP. It’s not HOJ, nor is it an active missile. It’s kind of in the middle, passively tracking on any (specific) active radar unit… kind of like an air-to-air version of the HARM or ALARM. It’s the one AAM that does track (airborne) radar emissions. The USN messed around with this on a modified AIM-7, but the project wasn’t pursued.
-
Did I ever mention a word about HOJ? CTRL + F my post and see if HOJ ever appears. It does not.
No you didn’t, you made a comment about missiles homing on emissions then provided a link to Active Homing missiles as your body of proof. But you never said HOJ–
-
You stated that if someone saw you with a passive detection device they would see you first with their radar. This was the whole argument that you missed wholesale. This is not true. How do you think the HTS pod works? And I can promise you without talking about ranges (again because they’re classified), that the HTS pod picks up ELINT a lot farther out than the radar can send and pick up radar returns.
Wrong, the passive systems can filter and identify certain signals further out based on signal signature and RF analysis. But RF is RF is RF–it all travels LOS, at least at the frequencies we’re talking about without accounting for atmospherics. HTS pods have better fidelity at longer ranges because there is less distortion from a stronger active signal than a reflected signal (A SAM is pushing electrons, not reflecting them–but even reflected electrons continue to move until they can’t). The software in your FCR decides what to paint and not paint on the display based on algorithms for filtering suspected false positives and ambient noise. But this all beyond the point of my post. The point I was making is that PASSIVE detection and tracking is not a one-stop shop for any combat system. If it was, then there wouldn’t be any need for radar to exist. And in the BMS world (Remember we’re talking about a game here…) the argument that EMCON plays such a huge role in the game engine is either false, or overly simplified in it’s implementation.
-
Wrong, the passive systems can filter and identify certain signals further out based on signal signature and RF analysis. But RF is RF is RF–it all travels LOS, at least at the frequencies we’re talking about without accounting for atmospherics. HTS pods have better fidelity at longer ranges because there is less distortion from a stronger active signal than a reflected signal (A SAM is pushing electrons, not reflecting them–but even reflected electrons continue to move until they can’t). The software in your FCR decides what to paint and not paint on the display based on algorithms for filtering suspected false positives and ambient noise. But this all beyond the point of my post. The point I was making is that PASSIVE detection and tracking is not a one-stop shop for any combat system. If it was, then there wouldn’t be any need for radar to exist. And in the BMS world (Remember we’re talking about a game here…) the argument that EMCON plays such a huge role in the game engine is either false, or overly simplified in it’s implementation.
Unfortunately I have to leave it at that. I know you know what you’re talking about. And I wish we could carry on this convo, but it terms of where it’s headed, a vault would be needed.
-
Actually, in the BMS world, because of its oversimplification of the real world, EMCON plays a larger role, I would argue.
Whether passive detection is a one stop shop depends on the assumptions made of the system. A great example would be CMNO, a simulation that has great emphasis on EMCON. Its systems work very well passively, often detecting fighters through radio emissions. BMS conversely one rarely worries about EMCON, either using the active systems available to their greatest extent, or occasionally trying to do a mission or attack with complete radar silence.
Still, its an axiom that photons spread out as they travel from the emitter, and its an axiom that photon density is what triggers RWR, or allows the radar to display a target. Photons must travel r, the range from the emitter to the RWR, or 2r, the distance from the emitter, to the target, back to the receiver. For any given power setting, photon density at the target is much higher than density at the emitter/receiver.
Gets a little more complicated when you consider that the antenna size for the RWR may demand a higher photon density than would be required by the emitters receiver, and that the RCS of the target likely will strongly affect the photon density at the emitter/receiver. Then you get frequency and polarization effects… but broadly speaking, if you have a passive system, it ought to be able to detect the presence of an active system, at a greater range than the active system can detect the target, for virtually any specific example.
-
Great conversation to read. in BMS what does the RWR actually detect? Any sweep of a radar or a lock?
-
Great conversation to read. in BMS what does the RWR actually detect? Any sweep of a radar or a lock?
Both, even search radars when you enable that mode.
-
In BMS, what is the order in which a lock will trigger the enemy in various radar modes? I’m assuming STT most likely but then what, SAM or TWS?
-
SAM is much more likely to trip RWR than TWS is…
-
That’s why RADAR works–YOU generate the signal and it bounces back to your receiver. Now, actively transmitting in the same freq range as a radar system out there searching (IE from your own radar) WILL produce a bigger return to the system searching (In RL anyway) if it is in the same freq range, but RF is RF whether it’s reflected from an aircraft or generated by an aircraft it will travel the same. Someone has to be listening to the right freqs for it to make a difference. So unless IADS has magically been implemented in a way more advanced way than anything else in the game–there should not be any passive detection or increased visibility from ECM. SHOULD being the keyword.
If ECM transmits on the same freq as the radar it is trying to defect, it does effect amplitude. However, if the two RF wave are 180* out of phase the two waves will cancel each other. This condition can corrupt the track file or break lock and put the radar back into search mode.
Even if the return freq’s amplitude is increased the radar would not know when the return duty cycle starts and ends. This screws up the radars target ranging and altitude. But radar would still have bearing and the b-scope put chevrons on the targets b-line when it cant compute range.
I guess its possible a passive radar to DF an ECM the radar is narrow band and the ECM broadband. Again chevrons on the b-line.
Doppler and ECM <shrug>Can a ECM make your aircraft to look like a tree? There’s no closure speed on a chevron contact when b-line is active detected.
F4 has used simple rule of freq. Im sure both side have their tricks to win the RF battle ex. modulating data code on the radars RF.</shrug>
-
Its a tad more complicated than that.
-
Both, even search radars when you enable that mode.
OK that is always what I assumed. Thanks